• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary Lost Because Of

Hillary Lost The Election Because Of:

  • The Comey Letter

    Votes: 10 8.7%
  • The Russian Hacking

    Votes: 4 3.5%
  • Hillary

    Votes: 101 87.8%

  • Total voters
    115
Now i did for trump but i adementally argued against those that claimed 3rd party votes are throw aways. Before i became convinced by trump i was going to vote 3rd party. I think its more important to vote for something than it is to vote against something. If i had not liked any of tje 3rd party candidates which i did not i was going to write in george washington. I bwlieve 3rd party and write in votes send a message to the major partys of the type of person they need to run to earn your vote. Both partys are foolish if they ignore what 8 million voters voted for. If they are tone deaf they do not deserve our votes. You doing what you did amounts to acting as a political compass to point the party into a desired direction. I dont want to overstate it but i think it takes a certain amount of courage to vote 3rd party. Your playing the long gamenwhile the rest of the dissatisfied voters are playing short term and then getting mad that the party never offers them good candidates.

Btw i think the dems best shot at winning was nartim omalley. I lived in baltimore when he was the mayor. He is a very liberal guy but he us also very likeable. I would not of voted for him because i believe after the last 28 years of left leaning and moderate right presidentsbwe needed to move toward the right in policy but i would not of been upset if he had won, just disappointed. The party should really consider running him against trump in 2020.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

You speak of throw away votes...but isn't it a throw away vote when you vote for someone because you like them instead of policies? I mean mayor of Baltimore? Really...the mayor of Baltimore.....ROTFLMAO
 
Agreed. Now, the solution to this problem again is?

Bill Clinton and a republican congress passed a law (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and was actually a part of republican's 'contract with America') that only allowed an able bodied person to be on welfare for a minimum amount of time...I believed it was five years. Obama waved that requirement.
Workfare (1988) was another way to reduce the number on welfare....strangely when able bodies are on welfare and are faced with the requirement to work for that welfare the number of people receiving welfare dropped. In 2012 Obama waved that requirement.
 
She lost because fewer people voted against Trump than voted against Hillary.
No fan of Hillary, but she got 3 million more votes than Trump did, so... Nope, you're stating a falsehood here. That's true in the needed states, this happened, but this isn't true of the general election.

so what. most of the congressional districts voted for Trump. most property owners voted for Trump. I am glad we don't have a pure democracy and the lowest common denominator rules.

Firstly, who gives a f*** if property owners voted for Trump? Were the three million people more who voted for Hillary illegitimate then? Are they citizens? Yes. Are they tax-payers? You have no clue, or if you do, you've provided no evidence. In any case, the only relevant criterion is that they are US citizens. That's the only thing that matters (short of felonies) for voting and having those votes count.

Secondly, because we're in an era of people making s*** up on the spot, provide evidence for your claim that more Trump supporters are land-owners. As I stated, I don't care, but if you're going to make the claim, then support the claim with a source.
 
Firstly, who gives a f*** if property owners voted for Trump? Were the three million people more who voted for Hillary illegitimate then? Are they citizens? Yes. Are they tax-payers? You have no clue, or if you do, you've provided no evidence. In any case, the only relevant criterion is that they are US citizens. That's the only thing that matters (short of felonies) for voting and having those votes count.

In a nation of 300,000,000 people, I have to admit her winning the popular vote by 2.1% while historically impressive (Andrew Jackson won the popular vote by 10% and still lost to John Quincy Adams) our system does not allow population centers (most large cities are more liberal) to decide the election for the nation. This makes all the state's important and not just a few dense population centers.

I am no Trump supporter, but I am also not all butthurt about the election. Not saying you are, but the rage coming from none Trump supporters is as ridicules as that which Obama and Bush II got.

The whole thing is just getting out of hand.
 
Bill Clinton and a republican congress passed a law (Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and was actually a part of republican's 'contract with America') that only allowed an able bodied person to be on welfare for a minimum amount of time...I believed it was five years. Obama waved that requirement.
Workfare (1988) was another way to reduce the number on welfare....strangely when able bodies are on welfare and are faced with the requirement to work for that welfare the number of people receiving welfare dropped. In 2012 Obama waved that requirement.

So, the solution, or at least part of the solution, is to reinstate those requirements. Do you think Trump and his Republican Congress will do so?

Or will it take another Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. I suppose time will tell.
 
Firstly, who gives a f*** if property owners voted for Trump? Were the three million people more who voted for Hillary illegitimate then? Are they citizens? Yes. Are they tax-payers? You have no clue, or if you do, you've provided no evidence. In any case, the only relevant criterion is that they are US citizens. That's the only thing that matters (short of felonies) for voting and having those votes count.

Secondly, because we're in an era of people making s*** up on the spot, provide evidence for your claim that more Trump supporters are land-owners. As I stated, I don't care, but if you're going to make the claim, then support the claim with a source.

many of them are net tax consumers. people who have no real skin in the game
 
Didn't the 3rd party candidates get the difference in the votes? It doesn't matter what the winner or loser got in votes anyway.

Maybe that can be the new complain by Hillary/democrats why they lost the election..if the voters hadn't voted for either Stein and Johnson and had vote for her she would have got the nod.

Hillary lost because the Democrat base didn't come out to vote for her like Obama. It's that simple.
 
Hillary lost because the Democrat base didn't come out to vote for her like Obama. It's that simple.

You forgot the, "because she was such an undesirable candidate" part of that first sentence.
 
You forgot the, "because she was such an undesirable candidate" part of that first sentence.

You're right. She sucked, but so did Trump. Two horrible candidates...hopefully that will never happen again.
 
In a nation of 300,000,000 people, I have to admit her winning the popular vote by 2.1% while historically impressive (Andrew Jackson won the popular vote by 10% and still lost to John Quincy Adams) our system does not allow population centers (most large cities are more liberal) to decide the election for the nation. This makes all the state's important and not just a few dense population centers.

I agree with that, but that has nothing to do with who owns land. Look, Hillary knew the game going in. I personally think the electoral college is a farce and there's certainly better ways for small populations to assert their power (the Senate already massively overcompensates for small population density states), but she certainly knew the rules to the game and then chose, anyways, to do a lot stupid things (e.g. never step foot in Wisconsin). And then she lost --that's on her. In fact, Trump being president has a lot less with what he did than it has to do with the massive, delusional decisions made by the Democratic leadership and Clinton campaign.
 
many of them are net tax consumers. people who have no real skin in the game

Firstly, and again, what does that have to do with land ownership? I am a tax payer, but I currently rent as nearly everyone in my city does. So there's no correlation between tax payers and land owner. Or are you asserting that people should be taxed, but not allowed to vote? If so, best of luck in convincing your fellow citizens of this.

Secondly, as we do not live in a society where only tax payers or land owners cant vote, your entire point --whether its tax payer or land owner-- is wholly irrelevant. That's simply not how voting works in the US, and you can understand this by reading the Constitution and then working your way forward.
 
I agree with that, but that has nothing to do with who owns land.

Which is why I never mentioned it at all.

Look, Hillary knew the game going in. I personally think the electoral college is a farce and there's certainly better ways for small populations to assert their power (the Senate already massively overcompensates for small population density states), but she certainly knew the rules to the game and then chose, anyways, to do a lot stupid things (e.g. never step foot in Wisconsin).

Yes and no. The electoral college is a "farce" it seems only when the other party wins. Small populations have the senate, and large populations have the house, so please explain how small states have too much power again? As for Hillary, yes agreed.

And then she lost --that's on her. In fact, Trump being president has a lot less with what he did than it has to do with the massive, delusional decisions made by the Democratic leadership and Clinton campaign.

Accurate statement.
 
Which is why I never mentioned it at all.

You didn't, but you quoted me responding to someone who had made that argument. The context was rather explicit.

Yes and no. The electoral college is a "farce" it seems only when the other party wins.

To the I've always been consistently against the electoral college, for me this has nothing to do with Hillary.

I believe that rural areas currently have too much impact on the nations' elections. It's not to say that I think there shouldn't be checks in place to protect them, but even then it's hard to argue that the electoral college and the senate system have actually helped them. NAFTA and trade deals still got passed, which has pretty heavily destroyed the part of the country that I grew up in. Outside of the cities, the South and Midwest have been pretty economically devastated, pretty much entirely by Republican policies.

Small populations have the senate, and large populations have the house, so please explain how small states have too much power again

The Houses are gerrymandered the hell out of by Reps and Dems. 2010 had a resurgence of Republican governors, so the distract maps are so heavily skewed right now, I've read statistics that it's not even reasonably possible for it to go back to the Democrats until 2022. So that the House is its whole own disaster, and frankly gerrymandering and money in politics (especially in House races) make the House totally useless, honestly, in terms of representing the people. So that avenue isn't really great, and in fact doesn't significantly balance out the Senate. Beyond that, though, even if that weren't the case, the Senate has lot more powers than the House (e.g. confirmations), so it's still not a straightforward apples-to-apples comparison.
 
You didn't, but you quoted me responding to someone who had made that argument. The context was rather explicit.

Irrelevant to my comments or position.

To the I've always been consistently against the electoral college, for me this has nothing to do with Hillary.

Well considering your political leanings, yes I agree.

I believe that rural areas currently have too much impact on the nations' elections. It's not to say that I think there shouldn't be checks in place to protect them, but even then it's hard to argue that the electoral college and the senate system have actually helped them. NAFTA and trade deals still got passed, which has pretty heavily destroyed the part of the country that I grew up in. Outside of the cities, the South and Midwest have been pretty economically devastated, pretty much entirely by Republican policies.

You want to back that up with some proof?

The Houses are gerrymandered the hell out of by Reps and Dems. 2010 had a resurgence of Republican governors, so the distract maps are so heavily skewed right now, I've read statistics that it's not even reasonably possible for it to go back to the Democrats until 2022. So that the House is its whole own disaster, and frankly gerrymandering and money in politics (especially in House races) make the House totally useless, honestly, in terms of representing the people. So that avenue isn't really great, and in fact doesn't significantly balance out the Senate. Beyond that, though, even if that weren't the case, the Senate has lot more powers than the House (e.g. confirmations), so it's still not a straightforward apples-to-apples comparison.

Yea it's not like both sides don't try it. It does not change what the house is or it's intended buffer to the senate, period.
 
Three choices in this poll only. No all or some of the above or other.

Are you unaware that there can be more than one reason for something? And that this is one of the dumbest polls ever asked on DP?

How did you reach the conclusion that any of those options are mutually exclusive?
 
Irrelevant to my comments or position.

Pretty much by definition that's wrong. I was having a conversation with someone else and my statement stood within that context. You tried to drag me away from that context and asked me why I was talking about land ownership. The reason I was talking about land ownership is because it was a part of the conversation that you inserted yourself into. If you want to insert yourself into the conversation that's great, but don't ask me a question that amounts to "Why are you mentioning something directly relevant to your opponents argument?"

You want to back that up with some proof?

For what specifically? The states? Well, you can look at poverty rates. In terms of crime rates, healthcare, unemployment, and poverty, Louisiana and Arkansas has been devastated in particular.

Yea it's not like both sides don't try it. It does not change what the house is or it's intended buffer to the senate, period.

But it is highly relevant how well that buffer is actually functioning in the real world.
 
Pretty much by definition that's wrong. I was having a conversation with someone else and my statement stood within that context. You tried to drag me away from that context and asked me why I was talking about land ownership. The reason I was talking about land ownership is because it was a part of the conversation that you inserted yourself into. If you want to insert yourself into the conversation that's great, but don't ask me a question that amounts to "Why are you mentioning something directly relevant to your opponents argument?"

I see. So you feel I and others can't comment on part of what you said because of context or it had nothing to do with the poster you responded too? OK you may want to stop posting on a debate sight as it happens, a lot. My comment was spacifically about you making the point that Hillary won the popular vote. Had nothing to do with land owners or much of anything else.

For what specifically? The states? Well, you can look at poverty rates. In terms of crime rates, healthcare, unemployment, and poverty, Louisiana and Arkansas has been devastated in particular.

So I guess there is no poverty in New Mexico, virginia and Ca? Anyone can cherry pick.

But it is highly relevant how well that buffer is actually functioning in the real world.

Well that would be based on opinion as far as your cherry picked stats go. I can easily point out cities that have been controlled by liberals/Democrats that are just as bad and have as much population as a state in some cases.
 
I see. So you feel I and others can't comment on part of what you said because of context or it had nothing to do with the poster you responded too? OK you may want to stop posting on a debate sight as it happens, a lot. My comment was spacifically about you making the point that Hillary won the popular vote. Had nothing to do with land owners or much of anything else.

That's fine, but you were directly responding to me discussing TD's absurd comment about land-owners. I wasn't talking about what you were discussing, hence I asked why you were asking me about something I wasn't mentioning. For the record, this is the context of this conversation, which started with dittohead:
Field Theorist said:
dittohead not said:
She lost because fewer people voted against Trump than voted against Hillary.
No fan of Hillary, but she got 3 million more votes than Trump did, so... Nope, you're stating a falsehood here. That's true in the needed states, this happened, but this isn't true of the general election.

To which turtle dude responds:

Black Dog said:
Field Theorist said:
turtle dude said:
so what. most of the congressional districts voted for Trump. most property owners voted for Trump. I am glad we don't have a pure democracy and the lowest common denominator rules.

Firstly, who gives a f*** if property owners voted for Trump? Were the three million people more who voted for Hillary illegitimate then? Are they citizens? Yes. Are they tax-payers? You have no clue, or if you do, you've provided no evidence. In any case, the only relevant criterion is that they are US citizens. That's the only thing that matters (short of felonies) for voting and having those votes count.
In a nation of 300,000,000 people, I have to admit her winning the popular vote by 2.1% while historically impressive (Andrew Jackson won the popular vote by 10% and still lost to John Quincy Adams) our system does not allow population centers (most large cities are more liberal) to decide the election for the nation. This makes all the state's important and not just a few dense population centers.

As stated in the intervening conversation, I agree with you on the purpose of the electoral college, but my point was that wasn't at all what I said or was talking about. TD said that Hillary lost the votes, and then when immediately was proven wrong, he came up with an intellectually lazy, reflexive response so he didn't have to say, "Yeah, that's true."

So I guess there is no poverty in New Mexico, virginia and Ca? Anyone can cherry pick.

NW and Virginia are definitely part of the South/Midwest/West. To be fair, I should have included the Southwest specifically by name, although I felt it obvious that it was explicitly a part of "flyover land."
 
That's fine, but you were directly responding to me discussing TD's absurd comment about land-owners. I wasn't talking about what you were discussing, hence I asked why you were asking me about something I wasn't mentioning. For the record, this is the context of this conversation, which started with dittohead:

To which turtle dude responds:

As stated in the intervening conversation, I agree with you on the purpose of the electoral college, but my point was that wasn't at all what I said or was talking about. TD said that Hillary lost the votes, and then when immediately was proven wrong, he came up with an intellectually lazy, reflexive response so he didn't have to say, "Yeah, that's true."

I understand that, did not want to get involved in that. As I said, nothing to do with my comment.

NW and Virginia are definitely part of the South/Midwest/West. To be fair, I should have included the Southwest specifically by name, although I felt it obvious that it was explicitly a part of "flyover land."

Sounds to me like you feel 70% of the country should have no representation if they are Republican? Correct me if I am wrong?
 
Are you unaware that there can be more than one reason for something? And that this is one of the dumbest polls ever asked on DP?

How did you reach the conclusion that any of those options are mutually exclusive?

The poll was done on purpose for a reason. It was like a poll listing things in the order of their priority. Which one of these options would you pick in order of their importance, 1, 2, and 3? Option 3 won handily over the other two options. It was no contest. That says a lot.
 
The poll was done on purpose for a reason. It was like a poll listing things in the order of their priority. Which one of these options would you pick in order of their importance, 1, 2, and 3? Option 3 won handily over the other two options. It was no contest. That says a lot.

Right. But presenting it as "what is the reason" instead of "what was the most important reason" is a failure in terms of clarity. But I take you at your word for what you were going for.

As far as worrying about their order of importance, I agree, number 3 comes out on top. But does that in anyway diminish the affects, regardless of whether you or I agree on how much affect they had, of 1 and 2? It's entirely possible that if any of these three things could have altered the election. Even with Hillary being a bad choice, it's still entirely possible the Comey letter was that nudge that tipped the scale. I'm not saying everything is his fault or to redo the election, just that it's possible, and regardless of whether it had an effect or not, it would be wise of us to examine just how careless or possibly even how purposefully destructive the letter really was. It's one of those things that had everything gone the exact opposite way and Comey released a letter saying they got new info they are investigating that ties Trump to Putin days before the election and then Trump loses very narrowly, you and I both know how many conservative/republicans would be screaming from high heavens how the election was stolen. Hell, half of them now are screaming about non-existent illegal votes even though they won.
 
You speak of throw away votes...but isn't it a throw away vote when you vote for someone because you like them instead of policies? I mean mayor of Baltimore? Really...the mayor of Baltimore.....ROTFLMAO
I vote for candidates based on their potential to serve and benefit the nation as a whole. I dont vote based on a persons solely on likability but that does factor into the equation.

I dont understand ehy you think its so funny that i think O'Malley is a good candidate. He is a reasonable guy who leans left.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Sounds to me like you feel 70% of the country should have no representation if they are Republican? Correct me if I am wrong?

Well that's clearly not what I said. I'm saying those states as a whole have small population, and the system of checks and balances really hasn't helped them one little bit. You are correct that they keep on shoving Republicans through, but it's difficult to see what they've gained from doing so. Not that corporate Democrats are at all interested in them, but some tiny fraction more perhaps than the openly-corporate-loving Republicans.
 
Back
Top Bottom